The state Senate unanimously approved a seven-bill package today addressing concerns about police and prosecutors taking cash, vehicles, house and other assets from people not convicted of crimes.

The House passed the measures in June and the package of bills is expected to reach the governor’s desk for his signature Thursday.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which recently co-authored a report calling for reforms in the state’s civil forfeiture law, applauded the Legislature’s action Wednesday.

“The state should not be able to take ownership of someone’s property unless (he or she) has been convicted of a crime through the criminal system,” said Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst and co-author of the report “Civil Forfeiture in Michigan.”

“These bills are a great first step towards improving Michigan’s forfeiture regime, but to fully protect Michigan residents, the state should eliminate civil forfeiture altogether,” Skorup added.

The bills — Nos. 4500, 4503, 4504, 4506 and 4507 — do not eliminate civil asset forfeiture as the recent study recommended. However, it does change disclosure rules, requiring law enforcement to file detailed annual reports to the state when property is forfeited and noting whether the person was convicted or charged with a crime; the value of the assets; a description of the property; arrangements between local, state and federal agencies; and more. The information would be compiled by state police and posted online.

Bills 4499 and 4505 would raise the evidentiary threshold of evidence to forfeit property to one of clear and convincing evidence. The standard is still below that of “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is needed for criminal convictions.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan recently co-authored a report recommending ending Michigan’s civil forfeiture law and allowing property to be transferred to the government only after a criminal conviction.

The report said civil forfeiture — a process that allows the government to take personal property by claiming it was involved in illegal activity — is an incentive for law enforcement to seize property that they can use as revenue. It’s a scheme dubbed “policing for profits.”

“It’s time to bring the process of bringing civil forfeiture to an end,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Dan Korobkin, who co-authored the report. “It places the burden on the person to get (his or her) property back. It’s a gross distortion of our system.”

The report recommended eliminating civil forfeiture and only allowing criminal forfeiture, which means the government could seize property only in criminal proceedings and would require a criminal conviction before property can be forfeited.

The study found that more than $270 million has been seized from Michigan residents since 2001, but the total value is likely larger because the figure refers only to forfeitures related to drug crimes. The value of property forfeited from private individuals to the state is “likely larger, but unfortunately unknown,” the report noted.

In a widely publicized example, federal agents seized $35,000 from the family who owns a grocery store in Fraser in January 2013. The family made frequent cash deposits under $10,000 because their insurance company only covered up to that amount.

Federal law requires banks to report transactions above $10,000 and it was believed the family was trying to avoid that reporting. However, the Internal Revenue Service returned the family’s money in November 2013 after media coverage.

Fix Forfeiture is a bipartisan organization working to reform Michigan’s civil forfeiture laws. The Mackinac Center and ACLU’s joint efforts show that groups whose political views are traditionally opposite believe in the issue, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg said.

“It is great we can have a very diverse group of organizations coming from extreme positions on issues together on this issue,” Walberg, R-Michigan’s 7th District representative, said. “The bottom line is ... seizure of property causes erosion of trust between government, law enforcement and citizens. The time for reform is long overdue.”